The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-12-12
OUR VIEW OF THE VETO.


and controversy. The division of
opinion is as to whether the Consti-
tuition confers the right to veto
without the advice and concurrence
of the Cabinet. Some say aye;
some say no. We venture to say
that if the Constitution is construed
by the ordinary rules of grammar
and composition, and by the light of
Constitutional Government else
where, of which ours is intended to
be some kind of an imitation, the
ayes have it.
Article 48, which confers the
power of veto, is very explicit. 1t
says, every bill which shall have
passed the Legislature, shall, be-
fore it becomes law, be presented to
the King. If he approve he shall
sign it and it shall thereby become
a law, but, if not, he shall return it,
with his objections, to the Legis-
lature," etc. This is so very plain
that no scholar nor lawyer can make
it palmer. The matter of "signing"
or returning" is made to depend
entirely upon the Kings own APP
proval or disapproval, and has no.
thing whatever to do with Minis
terial advice or sanction. The con-
Guiding part of Article Al, which
says that "No act of the King shall
have any effect unless it be counter
signed by member of the Cabinet,
who by that signature makes himself
responsible" can have no reference
to the document which is required
TO accompany returned bill, other
wise the Constitution contradlcts it.
self. Besides, the former part of
the article last quoted from, dis
timely indicates the class of "acts"
intended to be made of no effect
without Minister'S counter sigma
ture. After specifying the number
and portfolios of Ministers, it says,
"They shall be His Majesty's
special advisers in the executive af-
fairs of the Kingdom" Then it is
the executive acts of the King
which must be "countersigned by
member of the Cabinet
But here comes in Article rs,
which say that whenever by this
Constitution any Act is to be done
or performed by the King or the
Sovereign, it shall, unless otherwise
expressed, mean that such Act shall
be done and performed by the Soy
ereign by and with the advice and
consent of the Cabinet" This, we
think, does not take away the indie
pendence of veto, because Article
4S, comforting the right, does
otherwise express" in plain terms.
If the foregoing reading of the
Constitution, which is simply that
of layman, be correct, then that
document no more requires the sig
nature of Minister to the Kings
veto, to give it effect, than to an
Act of the Legislature, to make it
law. The way to settle the ques-
ton, however, is that suggested by
a correspondent-refer it to the
Supreme Court.
Now, what can we learn from
other Constitutional Monarchies,
with Responsible Ministers? That
every one, without exception,
has the right of veto, with
out reference to the advice or
endorsement of Ministers. The
Queen of England has wisely alb
stained from the exercise of the
veto power, never in any instance
that We remember having put 1t
into force ON her own responsible
lity, Nevertheless, it is her prerO-
gatiye all the same, Moreover,
some OF her representatives, Gov
ernors OF constitutional colonies,
have frequently exercised tho veto
IN tho Queens name, We call 20
mind instances IN which It has been
used by Sir Dominica nalyi bond
demonstration, and BIZ Charlie
Darling, refusing 20 sign Govern
menl bills whioh bad passed. both
Aousss 81 paGllaWspl